Grand Central

It's actually a funny fact of the whole competition ... I don't think there was much evidence that many of the teams really understood the difference in tactics required for the race/off and finals that made them VERY different from all the other races. There were only 6 races where setting out to get one of your opponents into last place was the ONLY effective 'plan'. And in three of them one side ended being reduced to one man so it became a little irrelevant. In the other three race ALL of them ended 3-3. It was obvious that Australia, Denmark and Russia had 'got' it by either 'going' for a second/third 3-3, or at least being very happy to settle for it when it happened. And in all three races that really came about BECAUSE the lead rider of the 'other' side singlemindedly (and pointlessly) went for the win and Zagar, Millik and Tai never make any attempt to assist their partner at all. We all know that hardly any team other than GB had actually done any team riding all week AND their partner in each case could be regarded as being 'difficult to help' so that comes as no surprise in the qualifiers. But we know Lambert WAS able to make use of Tai's help which was very different. BUT the reality is that NONE of those three winners ever even gave it a thought. And none of them had it as a 'tactic' that they had even thought of. They still seem to think that there was something 'helpful' about going for the win ! Including Tai.

Yes. That's how it goes in sport, isn't it ? We all shut up talking about games/matches/cups of the past once the rider/player has spoken. I think not. This is one of those that will still be spoken about when Tai has overtaken Ivan's records.

Actually the issue has NOT been answered at all. In fact what has just been revealed is that we now KNOW they got the tactics wrong on Saturday AND now, in addition, we know that they still haven't worked that fact out. Amazing.

Absolutely right. Now who did this 'thinking' on Saturday night and which numptie thought it wise to put out this ridiculous press release saying something so daft ?

So we will go into the final NOT having the easier winning position of 3-3 as a plan at all. I am not calling anyone thick ...... But ?

One of the odd things about the two night SON final was that at the end off the first night there was no climax. The very thing that we are supposed to have to keep the TV people happy. Mind You, last night the British Final showed how a final really does keep an event alive to the end. Lambert had won the meeting after four rides if it were to be decided on total points. And the semi for 3rd to 6th finishers kept those later races really meaningful. And didn't it show ? The SON race off and final on Saturday was pretty much the same concept but what works very well for individual racing doesn't transfer as well to a pairs format. For us GB folk concentrating on the top spot it should not be forgotten that having race 43 as a race off certainly made all the later races for the lesser teams equally meaningful. I do not have a magic bullet but having just one earlier qualifier (or scrapping them both) and making Friday night some sort of qualifier for Saturday's final might work. Creating a decisive end ... may take some imagination but trying to get something that rids us of the 3-3 issue is essential, and I don't mean 4320 scoring. Either side could win with a heat advantage but a 3-3 would give the win to the meeting top scorers. And apply that to race off and final, possibly, as others have mooted. But top priority is to call it the Speedway World Pairs and boost the prize fund so that all teams can afford to send 3 riders. PS (before PR reminds us) i know the FIM set the prize fund but a little help from a small 'monster' needs to add to the kitty

Exactly.

Mind you. Until the morning of the Tetetrow meeting all the people you had asked kept telling you that the Finals were to be won by the race winner. Some times we all get bum info.

Perhaps. But yet again it wouldnt have mattered. It was worth the very very small chance of success even if it ended as a 5-1 against.

Blimey. We are not getting an inch closer on this are we ?

Do you think so, really ? Everything points to that NOT being the plan. If there was one at all. Tbh I think they were just going to 'try their best' from the start and see what came of it. No plan for the getting a Russian to the back specifically at all.

No funnily enough they didn't. But fortunately for them Emil did not concede third to Robert despite not getting help from Artem. So they Won. Had Lambert got past Emil with Artem not team riding to help; then on some russian forum Ruskie folk very similar to us would be pointing out that tactical mistake that cost them the win.

The funny thing is ... many of us here, with nothing better to do in our spare time spent several days last week discussing the various scenarios and tactics with a Final race giving preference to second and third. And specifically how this may require totally different thinking than the qualifying races beforehand. Didn't that happen within the GB camp ? Or even inside Rossiter's head ? Weren't they all 'brainstorming' the outcomes and possibilities - not just for fun, like us - but for real because it mattered ?

You are still making the argument here for it being a tactical mistake not to try though, don't you see? He could (did) go for the win ... we lost the final. He could have stayed where he was in second ... no matter we would have lost the Final He might have been passed by Emil in the attempt to assist Robert ... no matter we would have lost the Final. He might not have been passed by Emil but helped baulk Emil so that Robert could get past on the last bend ... BIG MATTER We would be World Champions.

Well OK. But the one you just posted about a 5-1 wasn't really giving a contrary 'opinion ' instead it just tended to point out how little we had to lose by having a go.

As he collects his silver medal ... Just as he did going for and getting the win.

Part of the reason some people are having difficulty is that they don't really understand what team riding is. And it's many variations. People - including the commentators - seem locked into just the one man inside/one man outside formation-riding to prevent a rider getting past as being all it is. The greater subtleties of slowing a race, moving someone out, trapping them on the line (some of which Tai did brilliantly earlier on) seem lost on some folk. The specific difference about THIS final above all other races in the meeting was we don't need wins or points ... JUST MAKE EMIL COME LAST and WE WIN. Plan A for the race was do that. NOTHING ELSE. i know my morals may be lacking but IMHO if that had not been achieved by the end of lap three 'slam on the brakes' and throw everything at him to do it, no matter what, you have nothing to lose by that stage. An exclusion would not matter by then.

Well I've heard it ALL now. The Final is the one race where you CANNOT BUGGER ABOUT TRYING TO TEAM RIDE. Has Roscoe joined the forum in disguise ?

I am so glad that someone with impeccable 'Tai credentials' is able to put the argument so well. Without incurring any 'Tai bashing' claims.

IMHO Absolutely correct.

Oh yes. Being objective, of course, they lost it. Actually they threw it away. Right from their first race on Friday. But they won't see it like that. Not sure on the warnings though. It certainly weighed heavier and heavier over the two days. Rightly I might say. They all knew that and that was ONE of the rules that had to be worked WITH not against. And both Poles were well used to that regime.

Well quite. Hence my final para. i can't think they will come out of the weekend being anyless dogmatic or more conciliatory. Third place AND losing to Russia over what they could see as a dodgy refereeing decision on the start of the semi. Won't go down well.

While that could have some validity I don't think that the good people of Manchester or Germany would have given much credence to the ramblings of random folk like me on platforms like this to influence them. And this was well balanced by people with most readers ... Phil Chard, Paul Burbidge et al who never gave anything other than a positive spin to the SON wherever possible. No I think they were very capable of deciding for themselves that what was being offered in the qualifiers was a bit of a Turkey. And at first glance the finals had so many things against them that many would have seen the wisdom in not gambling their money until they had seen just how it worked out. They may have a different view now we have seen a great final.. But if anyone was feeling Poland were being picked on before ... Then only getting third place will seem like their paranoia was vindicated. So who knows how they will respond now.

Mind you, these were not just 'perceived' attempts to stop them winning dreamt up by particularly over sensitive Poles. This had been most informed people's (correct) opinion worldwide since the idea of a SWC replacement was first mooted. You are not being paranoid if folk really ARE out to get you. But whether this was REALLY the reason why thousands upon thousands of individual Poles did not attend ... I somewhat doubt that will be the case. It still remains the truth that ahead of the events the public was not won over by what seemed a very dubious competition . This was true in England, Germany AND Poland. In fact there was not a place on earth that could have got a good crowd for it especially at the prices being charged. The real blame still lies with BSI and the FIM Now the final was seen to be so brilliant things may be very different next time. The superb action provided by the riders ... that has saved so many people from having to do a lot more explaining of their failures in strategy and organisation. Armando and Torben should go down on bended knee to ALL the riders for that.

Even on those subjects it is rare to find any rider who gives ANY meaningful insight in an interview. This is true in most sports when there is time to fill... Shove in an interview. It's usually pointless. Either the interviewer used is poor and their questions facile or the subject is poor and what they have to say is of no assistance to the viewer either.